If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I wouldn't call it a meaningless gesture. The support that the Soviet dissidents got made their plight much better. The Soviets knew that we were watching them and it limited the things that they could do to them. It also encouraged them to fight the system. Had we done this during the Iranian uprising last year, we could have significantly altered events there to our advantage. A congressional resolution that supports or condemns the actions of another nation encourages our allies and attacks our enemies. China will retaliate, I'm sure, but their dissidents will be heartened and they will act more boldly to defy their masters.

In fact, this kind of vote, which costs us nothing, but serves to put tyrants on notice, is exactly the kind of diplomacy that foreign despots respond to, because it embarasses them and exposes their misdeeds. Not only would Reagan have approved, but I think that the founders would have, as well, which is why Ron Paul's opposition is so maddening.

What business does Congress have spending our tax dollars (and it costs f money to keep Congress "open") on stuff like this?

"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."

George Washington, letter to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, September 5, 1789

"It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Originally Posted by Bleda

Don't know, but Odysseus makes a good case for it above. I don't see how this excuses Paul's No vote, since he voted Yes on other, useless resolutions, such as ones congratulating football teams.

Thanks. Ron Paul strikes me as someone who is more concerned with making a statement about an issue than he is with the issue. In this case, had he voted with the majority, he would have been one of 403, but by his dissent, he commands our attention. That is his agenda.